Because Al Gore and Obama did not vote on the Iraq War, should we dismiss their 2002 stance?

[TeamJordan23]

Some people on this forum are trying to make the point that because certain people were not in the House or Senate, their speeches or views on the Iraq War in 2002 should be dismissed.

I find this strongly disturbing and outrageous. Both Gore and Obama (and many others) spoke out against the Iraq War from the start. Their judgments should not be suppressed because they were not in the Senate/House and did not actually vote on the war. I am glad that we have some politicians who stood up, when it was considered political suicide by many, and spoke out with conviction against the treacherous policy that Bush implemented with his granted authority.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

1. The difference is Gore did not vote to fund the war consistently for 2 years

Gore did not go to Congress and side with Lieberman and Hillary against Murtha in 2005; Gore did not side with Lieberman, Hillary, and co. in the senate against Kerry-Feingoled; Gore did not side with Holy Joe and Hillary on defunding the escalation; Gore did not endorse Holy Joe against Lamont (we really need Lamont's vote these days...) and so on.

If you want to see a true anti-war record in the presidential field look at Dennis Kucinich's record, i.e. he never voted to fund the war.

[TeamJordan23]

9. Gore doesn't go around making speeches that call for immediate pullouts; is he not anti-IWR than? nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. I am not familiar with Gore's position on Iraq post-2002

What I do know is that Gore has never voted to fund the war and never did any of the things I mentioned in post #1.

[TeamJordan23]

14. You forgot one: Obama did not support Bush/Leiberman's War when it actually mattered in 2002. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. There would be no war today if Murtha's plan or Kerry-Feingold became law

That doesn't matter? :wtf:

[karynnj]

45. Murtha's plan was NEVER voted in the Senate

Given this, did you support Feingold or Kerry in 2006 before they opted not to run. Edwards did NOT push people to vote for this. Feingold voted against the IWR and Kerry, who did, was never a supporter of the war.

[wisteria]

22. He wasn't in a position to vote. IMO, a vote counts more than an opinion.n/t

[sandnsea]

34. Kerry's opinion on Oct 10 2002

Counts for me way more than his vote. As did his constant opinion against Bush's bullying foreign policy from "Do Not Rush To War" on.

[CTLawGuy]

41. yes

cuz opinions pass laws, not votes :eyes:

[Ethelk2044]

43. An opinion counts just as well. He was not out pushing for a wrong war.

That counts a lot in my book. Thousand of soldiers have died because people were out pushing a war we should have never been in.

[Clintonista2]

57. Then explain Obama's votes to fund the war

When I pointed this out in another thread, I was told that "personal opinion counts more than votes"

[killbotfactory]

17. You can find most of these answer's at his Senate website

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/">obama.senate.gov

For instance, on Kerry-Feingold.

for all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry Amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.

But having visited Iraq, I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.

It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.

We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.

For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry Amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.

But having visited Iraq, I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.

It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.

We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.

I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry Amendment. We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won't be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counter-insurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support.

Moreover, I share the frustration with an Administration whose policies with respect to Iraq seem to simply repeat the simple-minded refrains of "we know best" and "stay the course." It's not acceptable to conduct a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent, and where we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop reductions by the Administration - the worst of all possible outcomes.

As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain of the parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like nothing more than for our military involvement to end.

But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, 1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; 2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and 3) bringing our troops safely home.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/index.php

[TeamJordan23]

19. thanks, maybe the Obama haters should read this. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Thanks. That sounds very similar to this

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=257561&&

[karynnj]

44. This is a ridiculous position for an Edwards person

Edwards co-sponsored the IWR and was a strong supporter of the war itself at least into the early 2004 primaries. Obama was NEVER a supporter of having gone to war. Even in 2005, the only thing Edwards did was the WP op-ed where he said he was wrong. In terms of what to do, he was closer to the plan Kerry pushed in 2004, than what Kerry said needed to be done in October 2005. He was even further from Feingold, who called for flexible target dates for withdrawal in August, 2005. In spring 2006, Edwards (and Gore) did not call on people to back Kerry/Feingold nor did he at that point take a stronger position than he did in November 2005. It is NOT clear that either Gore or Edwards would have voted for Kerry/Feingold in 2006. (I wish Obama had the courage to vote for Kerry/Feingold).

Murtha had NOTHING to do with anything in the Senate, who called for change long after Kennedy, Feingold and Kerry had. The significance of his stand was that he was a conservative hawkish Democrat. The only things that the Senate voted on that was an attempt to change the war in 2005 were the 2005 Levin amendment and the weaken version of Levin, the Warner amendment. That amendment which was written by Levin with the help of Feingold, Kerry, Kennendy and others who wanted change was co-sponsored by Obama. *see below Fengold, Kerry and others wanted a more aggressive bill, but knew that even this would fail - and that it was the strongest bill that they could get all the non- Leiberman Democrats to vote for. It had the function of putting Democrats on record for the first time as demanding a change in course.

As to voting for funding - wants the troops are committed any serious legislator will vote for the funding. Note that the bill that proposed cutting funding - Feingold/Reid - cut the funding a year out except for the amount needed to do the 3 types of functions that the Democratic bill allowed. (Protecting our trrops and embassy, completing the training of Iraqis and fighting Al Qaeda). Feingold and Kennedy have voted for past funding bills.

** Levin Bill:
S.AMDT.2519
Amends: S.1042
Sponsor: Sen Levin, Carl (submitted 11/10/2005) (proposed 11/10/2005)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To clarify and recommend changes to the policy of the United States on Iraq and to require reports on certain matters relating to Iraq.

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S12701

STATUS:

11/10/2005:
Amendment SA 2519 proposed by Senator Levin. (consideration: CR S12669-12670; text: CR S12669-12670)
11/14/2005:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S12727)
11/15/2005:
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S12777, S12796-12798)
11/15/2005:
Amendment SA 5219 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 40 - 58. Record Vote Number: 322.
COSPONSORS(13):

Sen Biden, Joseph R., Jr. - 11/10/2005
Sen Reid, Harry - 11/10/2005
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. - 11/10/2005
Sen Kerry, John F. - 11/10/2005
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 11/10/2005
Sen Durbin, Richard - 11/10/2005
Sen Reed, Jack - 11/10/2005
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. - 11/10/2005
Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 11/10/2005
Sen Obama, Barack - 11/10/2005
Sen Boxer, Barbara - 11/10/2005
Sen Harkin, Tom - 11/15/2005
Sen Rockefeller, John D., IV - 11/15/2005

[wisteria]

2. IMO, Speaking out against the IWR in not the same as having to cast a vote on it.

I don't think it is outrageous at all. It's easy to say you wouldn't do something if you aren't faced with having to do it. VP Gore and Senator Obama at that time had nothing to lose by speaking out. And, they could have been as wrong about their opinions as they were right. Senator Obama particularly was not even in the US Senate at that time. He was a state senator and they are not even briefed on federal issues- just state issues.

[JanusAscending]

4. Hey Wisteria!!!

I hate to rain on your parade,but, what about the Senators in the US Senate? who were briefed, and still voted the wrong way??? I'm pretty sure Obama reads newspapers, and was up on things while State Senator. Maybe he read DU.....where one gets the BEST NEWS and INSIGHTS!!!?????????? This is just MHO, and tho' we may disagree,love ya anyhow for "the things we agree on":hug: DC

[wisteria]

18. They were briefed yes and based on the briefings and in one situation I am aware of consulted

the Secretary of the State at that time- Colin Powell. We know what way the newspapers were leaning during that period of time, so if Mr. Obama was getting his information from this source, it was all pro-Bush and going after those who might of harmed us. As for those US Senators who voted for the resolution, they based their decisions on what they felt was best for this country and t's people. Those that voted for the IWR could have been just as right as they were wrong.Personally, I would rather vote for a Democrat that erred on the side of protecting our country. As I said, things could of turned out differently.
But, I still love you too and I don't want you to think I don't like Senator Obama. I am just pointing out that no one is perfect. Actually, I am not taking sides in the primaries. I will ultimately vote for any one of our fine Dem candidates in the general election.

[quinnox]

3. Obama was right about the Iraq war

and it is probably the one thing that is allowing his campaign such an amazing and unexpected strength. But will it be enough to win the nomination? We shall see.

[penguin7]

6. How do we know Obama was right?

Just wondering. What did he do to keep the USA from going to war?

[quinnox]

8. As far as I know

he was quite public about his opposition to it early, and went on talk shows and other media to make his position very clear.

I don't think he was in a position to do much besides speak out about it at the time.

[penguin7]

16. I do not think that is true

He may have made statements against the war, I am not sure about that. I do know the that the Illinois election was of such nature that he could have easily skated through without taking any strong stands on anything. It was a real scandal ridden election.

[quinnox]

20. Well the Obama supporters will have to fill you in then

I really am not all that familiar with his history, all I know is he opposed the Iraq war from the start.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Not entirely the case, he had to defeat two much better funded candidates in the primary

And one of them had the support of the Chicago Machine, which wasn't very fond of Obama. Additionally his general election victory wasn't assured until about the time of the Democratic National Convention. Jack Ryan would've been a strong Republican and he didn't have to drop out until a scandal that happened about mid-summer. Then for the next three or four weeks, the NRSC tried to recruit Mike Ditka, who would've given Obama a run for his money just because of his celebrity status. Once it was clear that Keyes would be the nominee, Obama had it locked up, but it certainly wasn't a walk in the park during the entire race.

[penguin7]

53. Not exactly

I am going by memory here, Obama was not the machine candidate but the machine had split. I know for certain that elements of the so called machine were actively campaigning for Obama. I am not at all sure he was up against a better funded candidate. He was very well funded.

The big news on this race was a scandal with Blair Hull, who sank about 28 million of his own money into his campaign and then got socked by a scandal.

This was not an issues oriented race at all. I wish I still had campaign literature from this race.

[TeamJordan23]

36. You may want to read this Penguin

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

[penguin7]

50. I would like to see the video

[penguin7]

54. Is this published somewhere?

Is there anything to authenticate this speech?

[Hippo_Tron]

56. If it wasn't authentic his opponents would call him on it

They have opposition research monitoring everything on his website. I'm sure he is monitoring everything on Hillary and Edwards' sites as well.

[JanusAscending]

28. Probably the same thing that you did????

That is if you wrote your congress critters!! The same things we all tried to do, right down to marching in protest in the streets!! What did you do?? What do you think he should have done that he didn't???

[killbotfactory]

5. Many democratic senators voted against the war.

Are we supposed to just give everyone who sold us out and voted for the war a free pass on this issue, because it was "really hard" to vote the way they did? Voting for war is SUPPOSED to be difficult.

[wisteria]

21. They didn't vote for the war, they voted to give our President the authority he needed to protect us

and this country. None of our Senators sold us out. Did it ever occur to you that they had an obligation to protect this country and it's people and they had this responsibility in mind when they voted?

[Like It Is]

29. That's exactly right.

Bush took the authority they entrusted him with and abused it no end. The American troops took 5 weeks to defeat Saddam Hussein, but because Bush and Rumsfeld tried to do it on the cheap without any kind of planning we have the disaster that exists today. We won the war and are losing the occupation.

[TeamJordan23]

37. unchecked authority? Bad judgment if you ask me. nm

[BeyondGeography]

39. You're taking the naive and irresponsible position

Most Americans were like Obama and Gore; they knew Bush was determined to go to war a mere month after IWR. Howard Wolfson tried to say the opposite on Hardball last week and he was debunked:

Unspinning Howard Wolfson

{Last week} on Hardball, MSNBC's Chris Matthews had the following exchange with Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign (my transcript below the video):

Matthews: How would you describe position in voting to authorize the war in Iraq believing we weren't going to war, that Bush really didn't intend to go to war. Was that naive?

Wolfson: Look, she's taken responsibility for the vote. She's been asked about this...

Mathews: Wouldn't you call that naive to believe...

Wolfson: No...

Matthews: ...that we're not going to war when everybody thought we were going to war? I thought we were going to war.

Wolfson: I guess 80 percent of the country was naive then.

Matthews: They didn't think Bush would take us to war?

Wolfson: I think people were, believed George Bush was going to do what he said he was going to do, which was to try diplomacy. And he didn't.

...Did 80% of Americans believe that President Bush would "try diplomacy" in an effort to avoid a war with Iraq?

Not exactly.

I checked the Iraq archives at the Polling Report. Most of the questions asked in late 2002 focused on whether and under what conditions Americans would support going to war. However, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of 1,017 adults conducted November 22-24, 2002 (a month after the vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq), showed that a majority of Americans believed President Bush had "already decided" to invade Iraq:

58% - Bush has already decided to invade
38% - Bush has not yet decided whether to invade
4% - No opinion

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/unspinning_howard_wolfson...

[CTLawGuy]

42. So Ted Kennedy didn't want to protect us? and Russ Feingold? and Robert Byrd?

why do these people hate America? :eyes:

It was a vote for war and everyone knows it. Read Robert Byrd's floor speech around that time.

[BeyondGeography]

7. If they had favored the war and backed IWR would we dismiss it?

Would their standing as potential nominees differ at all from what it is today?

Easy answers on both. Obama wouldn't even be a Senator from Illinois, let alone a candidate for the nomination, had he not opposed the war at the outset, and Gore would be villified by most of the people who presently revere him. Their 2002 stances on the most important issue of the day are obviously relevant. Anyone who answers "yes" to your question is intellectually dishonest.

[penguin7]

12. I don't agree with that

Obama won Illinois in large part because of series of fortuitous events. His opponents kept dropping out from scandals. His stand on the war was not a major issue I am pretty certain. He ran against Keyes in the general.

The primary was a complete mess with the very wealthy candidate going down in a scandal. This was not an issues oriented race.

[TeamJordan23]

13. Great point. nm

[wisteria]

23. What? Obama was not elected to the Illinois Senate based on his opinion about the IWR.

And, I think he would be a candidate for the Presidency today anyway. He just would not make a big issue over his 2002 opinion. Also, where was this anti-war Obama back in June of 2006 when he had an opportunity to back the Kerry-Feingold amendment that set benchmarks, a time table and was binding? Senator Obama called it a Precipitous withdraw and voted against it, backing the pathetic Levin Amendment. At that time, he thought the moderate position was the best way to go. So did Senator Clinton.

[killbotfactory]

25. These are his reasons for not voting for Kerry-Feingold

for all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry Amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.

But having visited Iraq, I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.

It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.

We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.

For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry Amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.

But having visited Iraq, I'm also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.

It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.

We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.

I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry Amendment. We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won't be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counter-insurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support.

Moreover, I share the frustration with an Administration whose policies with respect to Iraq seem to simply repeat the simple-minded refrains of "we know best" and "stay the course." It's not acceptable to conduct a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent, and where we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop reductions by the Administration - the worst of all possible outcomes.

As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain of the parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like nothing more than for our military involvement to end.

But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, 1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; 2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and 3) bringing our troops safely home.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060621-floor_statement_6/index.php

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. That sounds just like Hillary Clinton's speech on voting against Kerry-Feingold

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=257561&&

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. He also stood against Murtha's 2005 call to end the war and against defunding the escalation in 2007

Obama was right in 2002; since 2005 he has been HRC-lite. There is a reason all we hear about is what he said on Iraq in 2002 and nothing about what he said in 2005 and 2006 when he was a national figure but was not planning to run for president. Only after he began running for president in 2007 did he present a token bill on Iraq, which was as empty as Clinton's similar token bill.

[killbotfactory]

31. Here are his major speeches on Iraq from 2005-2007

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/

[jmp]

40. Obama has repeatedly voted to continue the war.

www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/20/obamas_record_shows_caution_nuance_on_iraq/

But a review of Obama's record during his 26 months in Congress reveals that he has taken a more nuanced and cautious position on the war than the full-bore opposition.

Campaigning for the Illinois Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama scolded Bush for invading Iraq and vowed he would "unequivocally" vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for it. Yet since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations, totaling more than $300 billion.

[sandnsea]

33. Kerry-Feingold was the better choice

But here we are again, Democrats stuck with making decisions based on advice from the leadership, the Clintons. One can argue about Kerry's vote and Edwards' continued denial of war lies, what Obama might have done - but one can't argue that Hillary has been on the wrong side the entire way through.

[BeyondGeography]

38. He would be nowhere if he hadn't opposed the war in 2002 in the terms that he did

I wouldn't even think of supporting him with time and money, and I know there are many others like me.

[Like It Is]

30. Please, quit making things up! Have some integrity. n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

11. Obama would have voted no. it is a matter of judgement.

[wisteria]

24. You can't know that for a fact. This is nothing more than your opinion. n/t

[TeamJordan23]

35. It's common sense he would have voted no. Anything short of that is a smear by Obama haters. nm

[jefferson_dem]

46. Self delete. Sorry.

Bad hiccups.

[jefferson_dem]

47. Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter, and Noam Chomsky didn't vote for or against either.

Yet, like Obama, they were vocal critics at the start. Should their judgment also be dismissed?

[BigDDem]

48. The followers of Saint BO don't like to acknowledge it

but Hillary and BO have the same exact voting record on Iraq
since he's been in the Senate.

[beastieboy]

49. Why did John Kerry get a pass on 2004, but Hillary is getting berated?

Its such hypocrisy from the people on this board.

[sandnsea]

55. He got NO pass in 2004

He was beat to hell over this vote. And even though he spoke out strongly, repeatedly and consistently against Bush going to war, he still got beaten as "stay the course". The reason, I now see, is because Hillary was out there saying that in Nov 2003 and who knows where else. After what this board did in 2003, I am stunned that anybody is supporting Hillary.

[LWolf]

51. I don't dismiss Gore's stance.

He was, after all, the rightful president in exile. He's not, however, a current candidate, so perhaps that's why you don't hear people discussing his stance.

I don't consider Obama's "stance" as legitimate. Here's why:

It's easy to say you are for or against something when you don't have to back that up with a vote. Actions speak louder than words.

Obama was "against" the war in Iraq when all it took was words.

Once in the senate, he voted to fund the war over and over...every opportunity. He enabled the Bush administration in continuing the war, and thus enabled both the war and the Bush agenda. He was not "against" the war when his actions counted.

Actions speak louder than words. I dismiss his "I was against the war from the beginning" shit because his actions in the Senate don't back up those words.

[Cha]

52. That's crazy desperate

talk..I don't listen that.

"Some people on this forum are trying to make the point that because certain people were not in the House or Senate, their speeches or views on the Iraq War in 2002 should be dismissed."

The were saying the same thing about Dean in the last primary and he was against it from the beginning..that's why he was my candidate. I hated this mofo gawddamn War ON Iraq.